Luna17

Pages

Saturday, 15 October 2016

It's been a week for banging the drums of war and attacking the anti-war movement in the British media. So, what can we expect from Nick Cohen - that most reliable of pro-Western intervention commentators - in his Observer column tomorrow? Here is a list of his favourite motifs.

1) Claim the contemporary Left has nothing in common with what the Left was like when he was a lad

2) Brand the British Left, including Jeremy Corbyn, as 'anti-West'

3) Denounce prominent anti-war figures for appearing on Iranian television

4) Accuse the anti-war movement of supporting Russia (without a scrap of evidence)

5) Reaffirm his caricature of opponents of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as Saddam apologists, while forgetting to mention how disastrous the whole thing was

6) Describe the anti-war movement as supportive of both Assad and Hezbollah (again without any concern for evidence)

7) Say that the problem in Syria is that there hasn't been enough Western bombing

8) Imply that antisemitism is one of the motivations for the British Left's political positions

9) Suggest the British Left is basically the same as the nationalist far right

Yes, it's Groundhog Day for anyone reading the Iraq War's most tenacious cheerleader. Cohen is one of that select band of pro-Iraq war commentators who still hasn't shown even a hint of contrition after propagandising for such a disastrous war. No humility, no apologies, no lessons learned.

Another day passes without those who apparently want to protest at the Russian Embassy actually calling a protest outside the Russian Embassy.

It was on Tuesday that British foreign secretary Boris Johnson berated the Stop the War Coalition - a coalition dedicated to opposing British foreign policy - for not doing what the British foreign secretary would like it to do. A flurry of commentary, echoing Johnson's rhetoric, has predictably followed in the British press.

Protests are what they want, right? So why don't they call a protest? Why do they instead pour scorn on Stop the War Coalition for not calling such a protest?

If an organisation is not pursuing the aims you would like it to, stop bleating about it and do something yourself. Launch a campaign. Call a protest.

So, why aren't they? Why are the Freedlands of this world whinging repetitively about other people not doing what they want, instead of actually doing something themselves?

Three reasons:

1) They know that such a protest would in fact lend support to the drive to escalated Western intervention in Syria. They can claim it wouldn't - as Jonathan Freedland does - but deep down they know better than that.

The context is inter-imperialist conflict over Syria. Therefore a protest at the Russian Embassy in London would become useful propaganda for US/UK military intervention.

2) They are not actually interested in doing anything useful. Their interest is instead in smearing anti-war voices. It's the age-old trick of painting anti-war activists as in league with the enemy (in this case Russia).

The aim is to get lodged in public consciousness the idea that Stop the War and Jeremy Corbyn are essentially apologists for a foreign regime, and thus not sufficiently patriotic to shape British foreign policy. And of course it's the threat of Britain's second party of government (Labour) adopting a foreign policy that's independent of US imperialism that really terrifies them.

3) They know they would be branded hypocrites. Many of these people were supporters of previous interventions. Even those who opposed the invasion of Iraq are likely to have supported the disastrous interventions in Afghanistan or Libya (or both). Many of them backed the vote for bombing Syria last December.

Stop the War has repeatedly called it right, while these people have got it wrong. In opposing a further escalation of foreign intervention in Syria, Stop the War is again getting it right. More bombing is no solution for the besieged and suffering people in Aleppo.

This is a slightly edited version of an article first published on Counterfire.

Monday, 10 October 2016

I wrote this article a couple of days before Jeremy Corbyn's re-election as leader of the Labour Party. It was published on Counterfire at the time, but I didn't get around to re-posting it here.

As it's still entirely relevant, however, I thought I'd re-blog it here (without any alterations). You may wish to compare it to developments we have seen over the last two weeks or so.

----

It looks very likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected leader of the Labour Party. Despite the constant media vilification, the exclusion of over 100,000 members from the ballot, and the further purging of many Corbyn-backing members, the left-wing incumbent is still expected to be announced the winner on Saturday.

The leadership election only happened because of the actions of Labour MPs. 172 of them - by far the majority - voted 'no confidence' in their leader at the end of June. This was accompanied by 65 front bench resignations, including 20 shadow cabinet members.

From failed coup to leadership election

The purpose of the coup was to force Corbyn to resign. He stood his ground. Hence the leadership challenge from Owen Smith, forcing an election that most party members didn't want (and, if the latest reports are to be believed, even Owen Smith didn’t want).

These events have provided a powerful illustration of the fundamental source of conflict in today's Labour Party. A left-leaning membership - with newer members particularly likely to support Corbyn - is massively at odds with a parliamentary party dominated by the right wing. The political gulf between Corbyn and the majority of Labour MPs is huge: they are in fact closer, politically, to the Tories.

Similar right-wingers dominate the Labour Party apparatus too. This right-wing bloc inside the parliamentary group and the apparatus is closely connected to a sympathetic media and other elements of the British establishment. Smith was the fall guy: he agreed to have his name put forward, and he contested the leadership with superficially left-ish rhetoric. But the real movers and shakers are firmly on Labour’s right wing. They have already kept their distance from Smith – after Saturday they will conveniently forget he ever existed.

All of this creates tremendous uncertainty about what happens next. The divisions run so deep that the very existence of a single, unitary Labour Party is seriously in doubt. Many MPs are determined to block Corbyn and reverse the left's considerable advances over the last year. A breakaway is an option, but its prospects would be poor.

The hostile MPs have already resorted to a range of anti-democratic manoeuvres, together with constant undermining of their leader. There is every reason to believe this will continue – and it could even escalate.Which way for Labour?

It is in this context that a debate is taking place about how Jeremy Corbyn, and those around him on the Labour left, should build on the expected success in winning the leadership for a second time. Put crudely: should Corbyn's team focus on conciliation and bridge-building ('unity at all costs'), wooing the recalcitrant MPs with policy compromises and shadow cabinet positions, or should the left assert itself and appeal to Corbyn's second mandate as the basis for a serious shift leftwards in the Labour Party?

A lengthy new piece by Owen Jones is the most detailed and cogent expression of the first view, but it is merely one example of the current thinking among a layer of Labour-aligned commentators and activists (seemingly also amongst a layer of senior union officials too). Three major strands to this debate can be discerned: Should the front bench be recomposed on a broad basis? Should there be major policy compromises with the right wing? Should there be a conciliatory approach to the party bureaucracy?

The 'unity at all costs' perspective essentially says the following: many of the MPs who previously resigned should be actively encouraged to re-join Labour's front bench team. There should be compromises on contentious issues, especially in the field of foreign policy, and a stress on lowest common denominator points of broad agreement.

The apparatus, meanwhile, should perhaps be tinkered with, but largely left unchanged (this last point has taken concrete form with deputy leader Tom Watson’s cynical manoeuvres in this week’s national executive meeting, designed to put fresh obstacles in Corbyn’s way).

The alternative case from much of the left - inside and outside the Labour Party - begins by recognising that the bulk of the PLP is resolutely opposed to what Corbyn stands for on political grounds. The hostility is not – contrary to some claims – primarily about ‘leadership’ or ‘competence’ or ‘media strategy’. These lines of attack on Corbyn are proxies for opposition to his politics. With this is mind, the focus should be on further advancing principled left-wing politics rather than obsessing over which anti-Corbyn MPs can be wooed into re-joining the shadow cabinet.The ‘broad church’ strategy

The fact is that the previous attempt to have a shadow cabinet encompassing the full political range of the PLP ended in failure. Jones, for one, urges a repeat of this effort, but fails to explain why it should prove any more successful than last time. The Commons debate on bombing Syria was a particularly stark illustration. There was a farcical situation when the Leader of the Opposition opened Labour’s contribution to the debate with an anti-war speech, but the shadow foreign secretary closed it with a pro-war speech that drew enthusiastic cheers from the Tory benches.

If Labour is to provide any sort of meaningful or coherent opposition to the government, there must be no return to such a paralysing mess. The current, broadly left-wing, shadow cabinet is fairly politically cohesive and contains figures – like shadow health secretary Diane Abbott and shadow education secretary Angela Rayner – who can offer a serious challenge to the Tories (unlike their deeply underwhelming predecessors, Heidi Alexander and Lucy Powell respectively).

Of course it’s true that there will be a thin layer of MPs – among those who resigned in June – who can plausibly be part of a Labour front bench promoting Corbyn’s left-wing policies. But these are in the minority – and the emphasis should be on them showing remorse for their behaviour, not on the left pleading with them.

But it is fanciful to imagine that most of those hostile MPs can be brought into the tent without them pulling it down from the inside. For example, Jones makes a rather bizarre case for accepting the very right-wing MP Wes Streeting – who earned his stripes in the National Union of Students bureaucracy, spent a year working for Blairite group Progress after graduating from Cambridge, backed Liz Kendall for leader last summer and stoked the attacks on Corbyn over spurious claims of antisemitism.

Such a broad church is unsustainable. If we have learnt anything from the conflicts inside the Labour Party over the last twelve months, it is surely that.Irreconcilable political differences

The question of front bench personnel is closely tied to the question of compromises on policy. It’s true that the 172 MPs who voted ‘no confidence’ in Corbyn are not a homogeneous bloc. Most of them, however, are hostile to Corbyn’s politics and want substantial policy concessions. The pressure for this will be relentless. It would be naïve to think that there is a high level of agreement, across the PLP, on most domestic political questions.

The area where the differences run deepest, though, is undoubtedly foreign policy. It would be disastrous for Corbyn to capitulate to his right-wing critics in a bid for ‘unity’. The recent parliamentary committee report damning David Cameron for the disastrous military intervention in Libya is yet another vindication for Corbyn and the left.

Foreign policy is a field where Corbyn is stronger than the likes of Jones are prepared to concede. His critics should be instructed to get behind a genuinely refreshing and serious approach to international relations that represents a sharp break from the ‘New Labour’ past. Labour’s leader has been proven right again and again. That provides a credible basis on which to build.

As well as sticking with broadly left-wing personnel and pursuing a coherent and credible left-wing political vision, the Corbyn leadership will need to initiate thoroughgoing democratisation of the Labour Party. Having lost the political argument, the right wing is seeking to use every bureaucratic method at its disposal to weaken and ultimately crush the current left-wing leadership. Tom Watson’s tactics at this week’s Labour NEC meeting indicate that this will continue.

It is clear, therefore, that the left leadership of the Labour Party is at a crossroads. It can pursue compromise after compromise, thus demoralising supporters and weakening opposition to the Tories. Or it can treat the re-election of Corbyn, and the mandate it will bring, as a bridgehead towards far-reaching political transformation.

Either way there will be conflict, but the latter approach allows the left to shape the debate and emerge stronger.

Sunday, 28 August 2016

A review of John Smith, Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-Exploitation and Capitalism's Final Crisis (Monthly Review Press, 2016). Over the last forty years, global capitalism has increasingly been shaped by the core tenets of neoliberalism. The neoliberal counter-revolution emerged as a response to the return of economic crisis in the 1970s, and to the power of working class and anti-colonial movements in the 1960s and 1970s. It was geared towards the interests of wealthy and corporate elites, at the expense of the vast majority of working class and oppressed people worldwide. The divisions between the 1% and the 99% have become ever more acute, with the most extraordinary and ostentatious wealth for a tiny elite alongside hardship, insecurity and poverty for many people.Cuts, privatisation, deregulation, trade liberalisation and outsourcing were all components of a wider political offensive. Consequently, exploitation has intensified, inequality has grown, and democracy has been hollowed out. This involved a massive effort to defeat trade-union opposition and break the resistance and organisations of the working class. Though largely successful in those terms, this capitalist offensive has fuelled economic crisis, social polarisation and a political backlash that takes various forms.The rise of neoliberalism happened at the same time as capitalism expanded, and entrenched itself in new territories, becoming a truly dominant global system. The end of the Cold War gave particular impetus to the neoliberal mantras of free trade and globalisation, so that neoliberal policymaking has – with concerted pressure from supra-national institutions dominated by the interests of big capital in the Global North – become globally hegemonic. This dominance was captured by Margaret Thatcher’s line, ‘there is no alternative’ in the 1980s and, a little later, by Francis Fukuyama’s proclamation of ‘the end of history’, suggesting that the upheavals of 1989-91 marked a final and conclusive victory for Western-style capitalism.The capitalist crisis which unfolded from 2007/08 illustrated the failures of neoliberalism to resolve the deeper, long-term problems inherent in the system. Indeed, key elements of neoliberalism - like the growth of a deregulated finance sector and the increasing dependence on outsourcing - were vital factors in sharpening, deepening and prolonging that crisis. John Smith dubs this ‘capitalism’s final crisis’, both because he argues there is no plausible exit from the crisis (within the confines of capitalism) and because of the ecological dimension of capitalist crisis, which threatens the planet’s future.Smith’s book, which compresses many years of research into a little over three hundred pages, is, first and foremost, an account of contemporary global capitalism in the wake of decades of neoliberalism. A British-based Marxist and activist, Smith has previously published very little (this is his first book) but he draws on his own extensive PhD research and on an even longer period of researching, and thinking about, the main issues. It contains a formidable array of evidence, with an assured grasp of the economic data, to support the main arguments.Smith eloquently conveys the huge extent to which capitalism has changed as a result of neoliberal trends. The book is genuinely global in its focus, examining the main global trends and documenting the impact of a Western-dominated (and grossly unequal) system on the poorer parts of the world. It is also a savage indictment of the phenomena he describes, graphically revealing the human misery associated with the appalling working conditions - poverty pay, long hours, unsafe conditions and insecurity - dominating the lives of millions of working-class people.Smith also develops a particular argument about global exploitation and inequality. He demonstrates with a wealth of data that the whole system has increasingly come to depend on the ‘super exploitation’ of impoverished workers in the ‘developing world’. This exploitation generates massive surplus value for corporations based in the more developed global North. He provocatively argues that even many Marxist writers have underestimated the scale and significance of such ‘super exploitation’ for the global system, failing to give proper attention to the role of outsourcing in capitalist profitability. He offers a wealth of evidence that outsourcing, which involves corporations moving their operations to poorer countries with cheap labour to maximise profits, has grown enormously, and that neoliberal capitalism depends upon it.It follows that not only has the working class grown globally, but also that the working class in the poorer nations has become more integral to the fortunes of global capitalism, and, therefore, more integral to the prospects for working-class struggle and emancipation. Neoliberalism’s restructuring of capitalism and recomposition of the global working class consequently has implications for anti-capitalist resistance and the challenge of re-building working-class strength. The book’s focus is largely on working-class people as the objects of social and economic transformation, but Smith clearly sees those victims of exploitation and neoliberal upheaval as the agents of social change too.This is a very wide-ranging and ambitious book, but the opening chapter on the global commodity proves to be a shrewd entrance point to an exploration of several interrelated themes. The fact that today’s mass commodities rest upon super exploitation in the South – hidden from consumers’ view – is Smith’s starting point. He writes, in some detail, about three exemplary global commodities in twenty-first-century capitalism: the T-shirt, the Apple iPhone, and coffee.Smith exposes the highly exploitative, and at times horrific, working conditions behind these commodities, for example the extremely low-paid work in dangerous conditions undertaken by mainly young, female workers in the garments sweatshops of Bangladesh. It is demonstrated beyond doubt that powerful corporations based in the North, especially the US, are the beneficiaries of this exploitation, and are responsible for the terrible conditions endured by workers. The relationship between capitalism in the ‘core countries’ and the labour done by these workers is carefully unpicked.This vivid sketching of key commodities – chosen as exemplars, not for any exceptional reasons – brings to life what could threaten to be rather dry, economic material, humanising the economic processes under discussion. It is supported, later in the book, by analysis of labour conditions in the Global South: a very revealing interrogation of the everyday working conditions of vast numbers of workers, and how those conditions feed the profits of major corporations. The massive increase in female workers - and their integration into the market and the acute nature of their exploitation – is an especially important element of this transformation in the working class. Smith is also astute about the role of migrant labour in contemporary capitalism, exploring how wealthier states (and their business elites) profit from migrant workers at the same time as using immigration controls to police the boundaries between the Global North and the Global South, which helps sustain inequalities.One of Smith’s main arguments is that outsourcing is at the heart of corporate globalisation. Furthermore, he suggests that this has too often been overlooked as an absolutely central part of neoliberalism. When viewed as a global phenomenon, he argues, it becomes obvious that outsourcing has been integral to capital’s exploitation of labour in the neoliberal era. Corporations based in the North have increasingly focused on cheap Southern labour – sometimes on a huge scale – to address problems of profitability and to remain competitive.As Smith writes:

‘Ultra-low wages are not the only factor attracting profit-hungry Western firms to newly industrializing countries … they are also attracted by the flexibility of the workers, the absence of independent unions, the relative ease with which they can be forced to submit to working days as long as those described by Marx and Engels in mid-nineteenth-century England, and the intensity with which they can work’ (p.24).

The example of Apple (and other electronic) products, which depend on a vast complex of workplaces in Shenzhen, China, and massive levels of exploitation of those who work there, is offered as a powerful case study. This kind of outsourcing is at the core of the ‘imperialism’ of the book’s title: it perpetuates a systematically unequal relationship of super-exploitation of Southern workers by Northern-based capital. Globalisation is revealed as a process of domination, not some mutually beneficial exchange, or spur to development in newly industrial countries, as the apostles of neoliberalism like to claim. Neoliberal globalisation is in reality imperialism without colonies.The relationship between the Global North and the Global South is fundamental to twenty-first-century imperialism. At a theoretical level, one of Smith’s main concerns is to demonstrate the continuing relevance of the concept of imperialism, as developed by Lenin and others a century ago, and the ways in which our world continues to be structured in uneven and unequal ways by the richest and most economically advanced states. The book is therefore, among other things, a useful contribution to a Marxist understanding of what it means to talk about imperialism today.Finally, Smith argues convincingly that the roots of the capitalist crisis since 2007/08 are in global production. He bases his analysis of the crisis in ‘the two principal measures that allowed the imperialist economies to escape, for a while, the crises of the 1970s – the enormous expansion of debt and the epochal global shift of production to low-wage countries’ (p.280). These therapies became pathologies for the system. He explains why nothing, within the constraints of capitalism, can now be done to ‘prevent a protracted, calamitous global depression’ (p.313).This doesn’t mean that book is gloomy or fatalistic. Quite the opposite: it points to the enormous potential for fresh revolts by a greatly expanded, and exploited, working class. As the author concludes:

‘The southward shift of the working class, the reinforcement of the working class in imperialist countries through migration from oppressed nations, and the influx of women into wage labour in all countries means that the working class now much more closely resembles the face of humanity, greatly strengthening its chances of prevailing in coming battles’ (p.314).

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

It has become a predictable and tedious mantra of the Labour
Right, and its legions of media commentators, that Jeremy Corbyn's rise to the
leadership of the Labour Party - and the support he continues to receive from a
growing membership - is a return to the 1980s.

In particular it is the 1980-83
period that MPs and columnists have in mind, suggesting that current
developments are a re-run of Michael Foot's leadership and the rise of Bennism
during the early years of Margaret Thatcher's Tory governments.

This is meant, of course, in an entirely pejorative sense. That
era is safely classified as a disastrous one to which Labour cannot possibly
return, climaxing in the catastrophe of the 1983 general election.

It is tempting to dismiss such analogies as irrelevant
nonsense. But the arguments do need to be refuted. It also makes sense, more
generally, to return to that era as a means of understanding the Labour Party's
evolution and as a guide to making sense of Labour's opportunities and
challenges today.

Refuting
the myths

Paul Mason's article refuting the alleged parallels between
Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Foot is therefore timely and welcome. He correctly
points out that the Labour left's boom was at the same time as a broader
right-wing shift in British politics, a time when Thatcherism (though very far
from universally popular) was relatively strong. Although he doesn't mention
it, the rightwards-moving split which led to the founding of the Social
Democratic Party (SDP) and a good electoral showing for the SDP-Liberal
Alliance in 1983 was another manifestation of this.

The situation today is quite different. As Mason notes,
neoliberalism is discredited. There is a crisis of the neoliberal political
centre and, while right-wing forces can capitalise on that, it is clearly an
opening for the left. The current surge in Labour membership is not something
seen in the early 1980s and it indicates a wider enthusiasm for an alternative
to a politically bankrupt status quo. It's worth adding, too, that there is
greater sympathy for the left among the trade unions - whether at the level of
leadership or grassroots - than was witnessed during the Bennism years.

In fact the left has been more successful recently than in the
early 1980s. Foot was, as Mason remarks, a compromise candidate not a triumph
for the left. His time as leader was characterised by vacillation, incoherence
and lurches between left and right (for example, he expressed ardent support
for the Falklands War, seeking to outflank Thatcher in belligerent jingoism).

The more left-wing current around Tony Benn garnered a lot of
success, mainly among grassroots members, but was ultimately unsuccessful: Benn
may have lost only extremely narrowly to right-winger Denis Healey in the 1981
deputy leadership race, but it was a defeat nonetheless. This time around, the
left has actually won a leadership election - comfortably - and now looks set
to do so again.

During the Foot era the Labour left appeared to be faring well
but it was short-lived, had shallow roots, and the longer-term trajectory was
very much to the right. The poor result in 1983 was widely interpreted as
showing the folly of left-wing policies; the conclusion was that Labour needed
to adapt itself to Thatcherism. Neil Kinnock came from a left-wing background
and used this credibilty to co-opt a 'soft left' layer which had previously
backed Benn, but his entire period as leader was a slow march to the right.

With every election defeat - 1987 then 1992 - the proponents
of this rightwards shift were strengthened, and the left became ever more
marginalised (symbolised by a dismal vote for Benn in the 1988 leadership
election). Big defeats for the organised working class - above all the Miners'
Strike of 1984-85 - reinforced the power of the right wing, in both the Labour
Party and the union movement.

The massive anti-poll tax movement threatened to tip the
balance the other way, yet it found only a faint echo in the upper echelons of
the Labour Party. Also, the eastern European revolutions and collapse of the
Soviet Union were utilised to argue that socialism was finished, neoliberalism
was triumphant, and there was no alternative. Tony Blair's election as Labour
leader in 1994 took the process even further.

Paul Mason's article recognises that 'Corbynism' has emerged
in very different circumstances to Bennism and must be understood in that
context: it is a vibrant and hopeful response to discredited neoliberal
policies which have eroded the post-war settlement of public services and a
strong welfare state, accentuated inequality and hollowed out democracy. It is
not even slightly an exercise in nostalgia or an irrational psychological spasm
(as the likes of Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland are fond of arguing),
but a materially grounded and entirely reasonable response to changed
realities.

But the article also raises some questions and difficulties
that really need thinking through. There are three in particular.

Political
and industrial struggles

Firstly, Mason's assessment of the relationship between
political struggle and industrial struggle in the 1980s is problematic. He
writes:

'The leftism we carried with us into the Winter Gardens in
1980 had its origins in the syndicalism of ordinary workers in the 1970s. To
the shop stewards I met in the years between Benn’s 1980 speech and the miners’
strike, Labour politics were a sideshow. The unions had achieved control of
many workplaces and – it seemed – could go on calling the shots. In the year Benn
made his electrifying speech, the steelworkers’ union had just won a
double-digit pay rise in an all-out strike.'

This exaggerates the strength of the unions at that time. The
bigger story of the steelworkers in that period was that they lost - and there
were consequently mass closures of steel works. The even bigger picture was one
of rising unemployment and an assault on manufacturing, combined with a major
Tory and employer offensive against the unions which scored many successes.
There were major strikes throughout the decade, but most were defeats and this
eroded workers' confidence and strengthened the grip of a conservative union
bureaucracy.

The 'political upturn' of Bennism was, then, to a certain
extent shaped by the downturn in industrial struggle by the unions. There was a
substantial element of people looking to Labour, and a stronger Labour left, as
compensation for the weaknesses on the industrial front. But the deeper
direction of travel was to the right precisely because of the big picture of
repeated defeats of workers' struggles against a backdrop of unemployment and
insecurity. Any shift to the left inside the Labour Party was therefore likely
to be short-lived.

The other major factor driving the Labour left's resurgence
was the bitter experience of the Labour governments of 1974-79, led by Harold
Wilson then Jim Callaghan, which had caused massive disillusionment. This
period was in fact the birth pangs of neoliberalism: Labour politicians were in
office but not in power, obliged by the return of capitalist economic crisis
and the demands of international capitalism to repeatedly inflict public
spending cuts and wage freezes on their own supporters.

One response to this experience was a shift to the left,
embodied by a politician - Tony Benn - who had learnt from his own experience
of ministerial office how powerful the obstacles to even mild social
protections (never mind positive reforms) could be.

Workplace
and social issues

This question of the relevance of industrial struggle leads on
to a second problem with Mason's arguments. He writes: 'Today, work is much
less central to the left project, and for a variety of reasons. It is
precarious, hard to organise. Also, the things the left wants to achieve have
become more social, less industrial. There is, on the left, an implicit
understanding of political philosopher Toni Negri’s claim: that the “factory”
is now the whole of society,and the subject of change is everybody – especially
the networked youth.'

This is wrong at both ends. Mason is underestimating the
significance of 'social' struggles' in the past, while underestimating the
significance of work-related issues and struggles today. It is true that
workers' struggles dominated the 1970s, but they were never the whole picture.

In the 1970s and early 1980s there was a range of other
struggles from rent strikes and housing campaigns to the women's liberation
movement and large demonstrations defending abortion rights, from the Anti Nazi
League and black community struggles to the Right to Work Campaign's marches
against unemployment, from the Anti Apartheid Movement's resurgence after the
Soweto Uprising in 1976 to CND's mass protests in the early 1980s.

If we look at the history of the British labour movement there
have often been links between economic, work-based struggles and wider
political or social movements. Chartism united democratic demands and economic
grievances. The mass protests of the Irish and unemployed, and in defence of
free speech, in the 1880s fed into the explosive wave of militant workers'
struggles known as the New Unionism. The Great Unrest of 1911-14 was
simultaneous with suffragettes' protests and turmoil over Ireland. Rent strikes
accompanied the workers' strikes of Red Clydeside during World War One and in
its aftermath. And so on.

But it's also wrong to dismiss the politics of work in 2016.
Many of Corbyn's most resonant and appealing policies are to do with the world
of work, whether it is pledging to repeal the Trade Union Act and other
anti-union legislation, ending poverty pay and zero hours contracts, investing
in job creation, the promise of a National Investment Bank, or many other
policies and ideas the Labour leader has talked about recently. The world of
work is in fact at the centre of his political alternative.

This political vision encompasses policies - like funded
childcare - that directly link the 'work' world with the 'social' world. It
would be a mistake to separate and juxtapose 'work' and 'social', just as it's
a mistake to downplay the importance of people's conditions and experiences of
work.

As for workers' struggles, it is true that we have had 25
years of historically low levels of strike action. The emphasis on electoral politics
by so much of the left is explained partly by the long-term weaknesses in the
unions. But if the breakthroughs associated with Corbyn are to be sustained -
never mind built on - then this will have to change. The hopeful green shoots
we've seen this year - junior doctors, national teachers' strike, railway
strikes and so on - will have to bloom into something bigger. Electoral
politics alone will not suffice.

Many of Mason's 'networked youth' are workers - and others
will become workers in time. They will be stronger if organised collectively in
combative trade unions. The strengths of social movements and the tremendous
enthusiasm around Corbyn need to be used to fuel more powerful union
organisation and a renewal of workplace resistance.

Parliamentary
and extra-parliamentary opposition

Thirdly, there is Mason's claim: 'This generation, by
contrast, understands that the most revolutionary thing you can do to
neoliberalism is to put a party in government that dismantles it.'

This contains an important ingredient of truth. The ambition
and political generalisation involved in seeking to transform Labour into a
left-wing party and get it into government represents, in some ways, an
advance. Over the last year there has been a lifting of the left's sights
generally - a sense of actually shaping mainstream political debate and being a
relevant force to be reckoned with.

But this raising of the stakes brings big, important issues to
the fore and gives them an acute practical relevance they haven't had for
generations. The question of the limits of electing a government opposed to
neoliberalism is one such issue. Mason makes this revealing comment:

'The rule of law is stronger now. Everybody involved in the
Bennite movement sensed that Britain’s legal institutions were so weak, its
police, security services and judiciary so politicised, its constitution so
malleable, that the scenario in Chris Mullin’s novel A Very British Coup was
not paranoia. Today, though the secret state is large, it is under much stronger
legislative control. Should a leftwing Labour party come to power – either on
its own or in coalition with left nationalists – it is likely to be able to
govern relatively free of politicised sabotage from the state.'

This demonstrates admirable optimism of the will, but lacks
the necessary complement of pessimism of the intellect. It seems rather naive
to assume that the secret security state no longer has the potential power it
used to possess. It is certainly wrong to suggest that other elements of the
state are less 'politicised' than three decades ago - all the evidence surely
runs against that assertion. And that's before we get on to the role of the
media or the power of finance, big business and their institutions, both at
national and international levels.

The power of both the state and of corporations remains huge.
It won't be broken simply by electing a Corbyn-led government. Whether we’re
talking about this side of such a government or after its formation, there is
an undeniable need for mass extra-parliamentary mobilisation. This is a vital
counterweight to the power of the nation state, media, transnational
institutions, the City of London and big business.

The Labour Party’s membership surge and leftwards shift in the
grassroots, with a left-wing leader, are very important and hopeful
breakthroughs. But it would be a grave error to reduce the movement to the
Labour Party, or to put all our eggs in the electoral basket.

Corbyn’s initial success, in being elected party leader, was
fuelled by the protest movements of the last 15 years (above all the anti-war
and anti-austerity movements) and Corbyn’s strong association with those
movements and with numerous workplace disputes. Last June’s huge national
demonstration, organised by the People’s Assembly, was one key catalyst in
Corbyn’s rise to the leadership.

As Corbyn himself repeatedly insists, this is about a movement
of people not simply the role of a solitary leader. That movement is not
confined to members of the Labour Party and its activities cannot be confined
to internal Labour Party struggles and electioneering. In the last 12 months
there have been numerous campaigns, protest movements and strikes: from
protests against bombing Syria to the Convoy to Calais in solidarity with
refugees, from the fresh wave of Black Lives Matter protests to strikes by
junior doctors, teachers and railway workers.

The impact of these campaigns and strikes is amplified by
having a left-wing Labour leadership. Sometimes this is explicit, for example
when Jeremy Corbyn voiced support for County Durham’s teaching assistants,
overwhelmingly women workers campaigning for fair pay, or when Corbyn and John
McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, have popped up at picket lines for the junior
doctors.

Equally importantly, such extra parliamentary struggles
strengthen the left inside Labour. The protests against bombing Syria,
February’s national Scrap Trident demonstration and the strikes are all
examples of this. There will be many more to come.

Transforming
society

If we are going to achieve real social change – against the
might of the British political class, the establishment and the state – we need
to make advances on all fronts, and bring them together in a concerted
offensive. In particular, the breakthroughs in the Labour Party not only
require sustaining but need to be used as a lever to promote a more combative
labour movement. Ultimately, there must be a willingness to confront our
powerful enemies and not be limited by the constraints of parliament.

This broad perspective draws attention to something else.
Revolutionary socialists have been much derided lately, with a red scare about
‘Trotskyists’ by Labour’s right wing. Some on the Labour left have sadly echoed
the derision towards socialists outside the Labour Party (even Mason lapses
into this, with his concluding reference to ‘re-enactment groups from
20th-century Marxism’).

But one of the most important lessons of history is that
revolutionary socialists – with a general anti-capitalist perspective and a
deep commitment to extra-parliamentary forms of struggle – have a crucial role
to play. It is the radical left that has a formidable record of initiating and
shaping a great many different struggles on the streets and in the workplaces.
It has always had a larger strategic vision than the internal battles of the
Labour Party and winning votes, with a relentless focus on self-activity and
mass mobilisation.

This radical left also has a political vision that goes beyond
the limits of parliament and of reforming a crisis-ridden system. In the
current period, this can underpin an independent left-wing politics that is
impervious to the huge pressures of holding the Labour Party together, of
appeasing right-wingers and of narrow, ‘centre ground’-chasing electoralism.

Such independent politics also require independent organisation, with
anti-capitalist activists grouped together and operating independently of
Labour. These elements are as necessary as they ever were.

Thursday, 28 July 2016

I think Jeremy Corbyn will win the Labour leadership election, but it isn't inevitable. In some ways it's a tougher challenge than last summer,
when Corbyn was first elected. If Owen Smith is going to win it will be due to
the wider political climate, a series of tactics by his campaign, and perhaps a
few weaknesses on the part of Corbyn’s campaign.

Owen Smith's path to victory

Here's how I think that ‘worst case scenario’ of a defeat for Corbyn could
plausibly happen. Constant media vilification of Corbyn, especially the
allegations of abuse and intimidation by his supporters, could go some way to
persuading some Labour Party members that it's just not worth holding on to
him. They may largely agree with the current leader, but if this is what the
media will continuously do to Labour if Corbyn continues in post then it's just
not worth it.

This is reinforced by the constant mantra of insisting that
Corbyn is unelectable. All the evidence is that Labour would do the same or
worse in polls with Smith as leader, but poor polling for Labour (which we're
seeing now) is still likely to help the challenger not the incumbent. All
Labour members care about being electable.

Notice, too, that Smith (while largely stealing Corbyn's
policies) has differentiated himself on immigration. This plays to the idea
that on some issues Labour needs to get more in tune with existing public
opinion to be electable.

Smith's adoption of many of Corbyn's policies may be
unconvincing (and has been greeted with mockery) but this, too, could boost his
challenge. He knows what he's doing. There's a layer of voters in this
leadership election who could be persuaded that a Smith leadership would retain
most of the Corbyn policies they like while being more media-friendly and
plausibly prime ministerial.

If these policy pledges are the carrot, then the threat from
most MPs of refusing to work with Corbyn is the stick. It is a powerful weapon:
the 'no confidence' vote by MPs was overwhelming and the resignations by front
benchers were sweeping, so everyone voting in this election knows that a vote
for Corbyn will sustain the war between the leadership (backed by much of the
membership) and the bulk of the PLP.

A desire to avoid that - and instead have a fully staffed
and relatively cohesive front bench, with a leader who commands most MPs'
support - could prevail. Labour is a parliamentary party: there is always a
strong pull towards what works best in the logic of parliamentary realpolitik.

Finally, Smith's vow to fight for a second referendum on EU
membership is a shrewd move. Most Labour members who support, or are inclined
to support, Corbyn voted to remain in the EU. Smith is cynically seeking to
exploit this in his favour. Corbyn - having been obliged to campaign for a
remain position despite many of his own instincts – risks getting trapped in a
rather weak position on this issue.

Also remember that Smith is the single challenger to Corbyn,
whereas last time there were three candidates on the right. The Labour Right
has become better organised and seems to have recruited many people to the £25
supporters’ scheme. It is also very well-funded, which will mean sustained and
serious campaigning between now and September.

I don't think all of this will be enough to get Smith over
the finishing line. But it could be. Even if it isn't enough for victory, we could
see the challenger getting a large minority - over 40% - of votes, therefore
emboldening the majority of the PLP. It would be a serious mistake for Corbyn
supporters to complacently assume that he will be re-elected comfortably.

How can Corbyn guarantee victory?

Firstly, Corbyn's campaign needs to be relentless in
promoting clear priority policies that can galvanise support and offer a bold
alternative to a failed political status quo. This is what made the difference
last summer - and it needs to be done again.

There is little political traction in complaining - however
justifiably - about the behaviour of MPs or the party bureaucracy's dubious
manoeuvres. The campaign will be won on politics. It needs to be
outward-looking, political and concrete in offering alternative policies.

Secondly, the policy platform needs to be more bold and
radical. If Smith can merrily steal most of Corbyn's 'softer' policies then
simply repeating those policies will be insufficient.

This also reflects how the political landscape has shifted
recently. Osborne's last major act as chancellor was to drop the fiscal targets
that had served as a mantra for the government since 2010. Theresa May and her
ministers are discussing economic stimulus, not simply obsessing over cuts.

The ground has shifted. Corbyn and McDonnell now need to
decisively articulate bold policies for large-scale public investment in jobs,
infrastructure, housing and public services. It means foregrounding such things
as a national investment bank, public control of public assets (energy,
transport etc), a massive house-building programme and investment in creating
climate-friendly jobs.

The combination of the austerity project's obvious
exhaustion and the vote to leave the EU has opened up a new set of
possibilities. If Corbyn is going to unite working class people who voted Leave
with those who voted Remain it will be on the basis of a version of Brexit that
benefits the vast majority of people.

Putting forward ambitious, and joined-up, policies on jobs,
housing and services is essential for undercutting the attempts to use the
issue of immigration as a battering ram against the left. These economic
policies need to be accompanied by a clear and unequivocal defence of migrants
and their rights.

This need for radicalism also implies that there should be
no compromise on those issues - like Trident renewal and freedom of movement -
where some on the Labour left are advocating making concessions. Opposing
Trident is the correct position for several reasons, one of which is that scrapping
the hugely expensive programme would liberate funds for socially useful
investment. The defence of migration is not so controversial when coupled with
pledges of large-scale public investment - a working class politics that can
undercut the racism and scapegoating.

Thirdly, there has to be a focus on public mobilisation -
marches, protests, rallies - nationwide to galvanise support for Corbyn. The
campaign can't be treated as merely an internal party battle. There's much more
at stake than that. And once Corbyn has won re-election, there will be the
broader challenges of resisting sustained attacks from not only Labour’s right
wing but from the British state and ruling class, and of winning mass popular
support for the politics represented by Corbyn.

Also, conducting the campaign purely on that ground is beneficial
to Smith when we consider the balance of political forces inside the PLP and
the powerful pull of parliamentary realpolitik inside the Labour Party.
Corbyn's campaign needs to be treated, and pitched, as a political movement not
simply a leadership campaign. There needs to be an appeal to the whole labour
movement and an emphasis on active mobilisation, not simply casting a vote in
the leadership election.

This is important for winning Corbyn's re-election. But it's
even more important in laying the groundwork for life after the leadership
election. It is through mass protest movements, re-building trade union
strength and workers' resistance that we will win victories, re-shape politics and
raise the prospect of a serious left-wing challenge to the neoliberal status
quo. The pro-Corbyn mobilisations can be a springboard for further collective
action, and a boost to anti-austerity, anti-war and anti-racist movements, not
simply a tool for Corbyn's re-election.

Building a stronger left

The establishment pressure on Corbyn's leadership is so
enormous that a sustained movement is needed in response. But it's more than
that: popular mobilisations can build a left that is powerful in the field of
extra-parliamentary struggle - strikes, direct action, protests - as well as
Labour Party politics. This, in turn, acts as a constant pull to the left on
the Labour Party, in which the conservative PLP (and the wider pressures of
electoral politics) acts as a constant pull to the right.

There's a constant danger that activism becomes trapped in
the structures and routines of the Labour Party, and is limited to
electioneering. Labour leftwingers need to work with a range of people to build
independent, broad-based movements of resistance, and to strengthen the trade
unions (which organise millions of people beyond Labour's ranks).

The Labour Party has mushroomed into a party of over half a
million members. There are mass rallies taking place to support Corbyn.
Nonetheless, there are many, many people outside Labour's ranks who will be
involved in political activity through anti-cuts demonstrations, refugee
solidarity work, housing campaigns, anti-racist protests, strikes by teachers,
junior doctors and others, and many other campaigns and mobilisations.

The left as a whole will be stronger if it connects with
these people, and treats such movements as the basis for developing a more
influential left. This cannot be a left that is restricted to electoral
politics, but one that links bold political demands with taking action on the
streets and in the workplaces. This is the best way forward for anyone wanting
an effective left-wing Labour Party, but also for the even larger and more
important project of building a combative working class movement that can
re-shape society.

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

At the time of writing, there is a genuine possibility that
a court ruling (due tomorrow) will declare that Jeremy Corbyn must seek MPs'
and MEPs' nominations to be a leadership candidate. And it's perfectly possible
that the Labour Party's bureaucracy - desperate to defeat Corbyn - will defer
to the legal judgement and act accordingly.

If that happens it will generate, immediately, a massive
crisis in the Labour Party, and very quickly some sort of split. After all, it
is almost certain that Corbyn will not be able to get the required nominations:
MPs who nominated him to 'broaden the debate' last summer are unlikely to repeat
their mistake, and the determination of many MPs to remove Corbyn has grown.

The
idea that a single wealthy party donor – one who despises the democratic will
of members – could use the courts to overturn the elected leader’s right to an
automatic place on the ballot would generate tremendous shock and anger.

It is more likely, though, that this bid will fail and the
leadership election contested by Corbyn and Owen Smith will proceed. But the
fact that this can even be a possibility reveals the extreme desperation of
Labour's establishment to eliminate Corbyn, their willingness to trample over
democracy and fair play, and their common interest with the British state in
wishing to defeat the left.

A
concerted assault on the left

A vital part of the background to the current turmoil is that
most MPs assumed that the double whammy they engineered - of most MPs voting no
confidence combined with dozens of front bench resignations - would force
Corbyn out. In normal circumstances, a much lower 'no confidence' vote - and a
much lower number of resignations - would be sufficient. But these are not normal circumstances. Corbyn has the
backing of a huge number of party members and supporters. The entire future of
the Labour Party is at stake – a stark fact that is grasped by those on both
sides. So Corbyn stayed - and surprised MPs, who see everything through the
prism of pragmatic parliamentary politics, in the process.

The subsequent attacks on Corbyn, and on party democracy,
have been less aimed at delivering a knockout punch (although the NEC meeting,
where some hoped to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper, was such an attempt), and
more about a war of attrition: constantly wearing down and demoralising Corbyn,
those around him, and his supporters. The absurd anti-democratic procedures
-from retrospectively removing large
numbers of members from the leadership electoral roll, to hiking up the
supporters' fee from £3 to £25, to generating a climate of suspicion about
supposedly thuggish Corbyn supporters - are partly about rigging the election,
but are more profoundly geared towards this war of attrition.

Their hope is that a large layer of Labour members will
conclude that - for all their sympathies with Corbyn and his politics - it just
isn't worth it. Perhaps they will decide that it’s more important to have a
functioning official Opposition and to hold the Labour Party together. The idea
is that many of those with a vote in the leadership election will look at the
scale and depth of opposition to Corbyn among his own parliamentary colleagues
and conclude, very reluctantly, that a Smith victory is necessary if there's
going to a fully-staffed front bench Opposition, with the backing of most MPs.

Corbyn
vs Smith

It is widely assumed, especially on the left, that Jeremy Corbyn
will win. I think that's likely, but I don't regard it as certain. And if he
does win there's still a danger that it won't be with a commanding majority.

Labour Party members, affiliated members and registered
supporters will be voting at home, in isolation, prey to all the pressures of
relentless media vilification of Corbyn. Smith's campaign appears to be
well-funded and able to use professional operations to largely compensate for a
relative lack of activist enthusiasm (and the inability to replicate Corbyn's
mass rallies). All of this can make a difference and we should not
underestimate it.

The pitching of Smith as 'soft left' and the constant
barrage of smears against the left (for alleged abuse, intimidation etc) both
need to be viewed in this context. Nobody seriously believes that Smith is at
all left wing, just like nobody really believes the fantastical and baseless
claims of abuse and intimidation. The point here is not to actually convince
people that something is true.

The point is to disorientate and demoralise. It is to
generate confusion and to make the whole leadership contest seem unpleasant and
hostile, therefore encouraging people to simply keep out (or keep their
distance from supporting Corbyn). It all creates a general sense of chaos and
crisis in the Labour Party, which benefits Corbyn's right-wing opponents who
style themselves as beacons of stability and a professional approach to
politics.

One line of attack is the advocacy of ‘Corbynism without
Corbyn’. It is not being suggested that someone from within the Corbynite ranks
- like John McDonnell or Diane Abbott - takes over. Perish the thought! The
whole point here is that someone who doesn't support Corbyn should replace him.
That betrays what it's really about: ditching Corbyn's politics along with the
man.

Owen Smith, Angela Eagle and Hilary Benn are not creatures
of the 'soft left'. They're firmly on Labour's right wing. They are closer to
the Tories than they are to Corbyn and the left, accepting the dominant
assumptions of neoliberal politics (held up as an unarguable 'centre ground' of
politics, regardless of whether public opinion accords with it).

British politics isn't split, first and foremost, between
Tories and Labour. The split goes down Labour's middle, with the majority of
its MPs oriented on establishment politics and the ideological and policy
assumptions that go with it.

There is something of a precedent here. In the mid-1980s
there was talk of 'Bennism without Benn'. It reflected the left's retreat, and
the right's ascendancy, after Tony Benn was very narrowly defeated in the 1981
deputy leadership contest. What it really meant was re-orienting Benn's
supporters to a shift rightwards under Neil Kinnock. Labour's long march to the
right - under Kinnock then later Blair and Brown - gathered pace.

A wider
political crisis

One argument doing the rounds is that the big Corbyn rallies
are a kind of irrelevant bubble, reflecting nothing about wider society. He is
merely preaching to the converted - a small minority - while ignoring everyone
else.

I don't find that plausible. This isn't like the early
1980s, when Bennism was largely at odds with a rightwards shift in the working
class and in society at large. The tremendous enthusiasm for Corbyn is the main
political expression of developments in society that affect many millions of
people.

There are different aspects to that wider political crisis,
but fundamentally it's about widespread disaffection with several years of
austerity policies and decades of neoliberalism, and (crucially) the long-term
shift in the Labour Party towards the neoliberal centre. There is a huge
backlash against the dominant elements in the Parliamentary Labour Party
because of their complicity in privatisation, cuts, war and scapegoating, first
in office and later in extremely meek opposition. The Chilcot report reminded
us of the single greatest reason why Tony Blair’s reputation turned to dust,
but Iraq was always a lightning rod for a wider set of discontents and
disappointments. This is no bubble.

Media commentators and Labour right-wingers are keen to
point to polling which suggests that Labour is consistently several points
behind the Tories. This is meant to prove Corbyn's unelectability. Yet the
miracle is that the gap isn't bigger.

According to conventional political logic, a socialist
leading Labour should have led to a collapse in its poll ratings. Combine this
with the fact that Corbyn can't get together a full opposition front bench, as
he's so isolated inside the PLP, and there's an impression among the public of
massive disunity and conflict inside the Labour Party, it's astonishing that
Labour's vote is holding up.

It partly reflects the historic resilience of Labour’s vote
(in contrast, for example, to the Lib Dems, whose vote share fluctuates far
more). But it surely also suggests that – despite massive media hostility and
the deep splits in the PLP – Corbyn speaks to (and for) a real constituency of
mass support.

We should also treat such polling with caution. Actual
election results - whether May's local elections or various Westminster or
council by-elections - have provided grounds for tentative hope. There are also
a number of unknowns that could potentially strengthen Labour in a real general
election. Turnout is one. The existence of a mass membership party, capable of
delivering the political message in communities everywhere, is another.

This is not to mention the Tories currently gaining from the
novelty of a new prime minister and shadow cabinet. It is likely the Tories
will face considerable difficulties ahead, especially if current indications of
economic problems turn into a long-term trend. Austerity has considerably less
popular legitimacy than a year ago.

Nothing
to offer

The right wing of the Labour Party now has nothing to offer. It has no coherent
alternative policy offer and no new ideas. A strand of politics that had a
certain amount of popular resonance – if never as authentically popular as
newspaper columnists liked to proclaim - in the mid-1990s is much less
persuasive now.

Owen Smith's campaign is caught between promising
(unconvincingly) Continuity Corbynism and differentiating itself from Corbyn's
leadership by meekly echoing Tory policies and rhetoric, for example on immigration
and Trident. As much as possible, the campaign avoids politics altogether -
focusing instead on vague insinuations about Corbyn supporters being guilty of
intimidation and on blandly asserting that Corbyn is unelectable. No mention is
made, naturally, of the MPs' own role in damaging Labour's electoral standing
through its ceaseless plotting and undermining.

There is polling evidence to suggest that a Smith-led Labour
Party would do nothing – at least nothing positive – for the party’s vote
share. International comparisons are not favourable to the advocates of a
rightwards turn either: in many European countries, the traditional parties of
the centre left are in crisis precisely due to their role in administering or
supporting cuts, privatisation and other neoliberal orthodoxies.

A split now seems very likely, though the time frame and
balance of forces (who emerges stronger?) are very unpredictable. If Corbyn
prevails in the leadership election, many MPs will be speculating about forming
a breakaway parliamentary bloc - one that could, given the scale of opposition
to the party's left leadership, be much larger than the SDP split which
unfolded between 1981 and 1983.

It would no doubt attract some wealthy donors and much
sympathetic media commentary, but such a bloc would lack a mass grassroots
party behind it, have almost no trade union support, and (unlike the SDP in the
1983 election), struggle to gain votes.

One possibility is to continue sullenly grumbling on the
backbenches, sniping at the leadership and undermining it in whatever ways are
available. But this would probably just defer the inevitable split. The issue
of deselection after the 2018 boundary changes would certainly come to the
fore. It is unlikely that party members would tolerate recalcitrant MPs who
they feel are not reflecting and representing their views.

Everything
in flux

The long term is therefore unpredictable. The important
thing at present is to rise to a number of urgent challenges and use the coming
weeks and months to shape the left’s prospects. The first thing to grasp is
that the unpredictability, flux and rapid pace of political upheaval means that
a 2020 perspective – where all practical questions are shaped by the assumption
of a general election in 2020 – is no good.

It may well be that there is no election for nearly four
years, but making such an assumption would be foolish. However, even if there
is no early election the focus on 2020 is damaging, as it encourages a focus on
desperately seeking to patch up differences and maintain the unity of the
Labour Party, with a view to fighting a general election on that basis. It
allows concessions to Labour’s right wing, which threatens to disrupt and
damage the momentum behind Corbyn’s left wing political vision.

It is also, in principle, right for socialists to call for
an early general election and for the downfall of the current Tory government
after such upheavals as the Leave victory in the EU referendum and the changes
in personnel at the centre of government.

The other key point to grasp is that the defence of Corbyn’s
leadership is integral to the prospects for left-wing politics in Britain
today. This recognition is important for all socialists, whether in the Labour
Party or not.

His position as Labour leader has enabled socialist
arguments, so long marginalised, a place in mainstream debate. The growth in
Labour membership, the campaigning for Corbyn’s re-election and the many public
rallies and protests defending him all point to a very welcome renaissance of
the left. This is about much more than one man – it’s a question of
strengthening the impact of the movements against austerity, racism and war,
and of developing a more influential left-wing pole in British politics.

The
challenges for socialists

With these points in mind, I suggest there are three key things to keep
to the fore when building support for Jeremy Corbyn.

Firstly, the movement around Corbyn is at its most effective
when it is radical and uncompromising. Politically this means holding firm to
principled positions on issues like immigration and Trident. Some prominent
supporters of Corbyn have wrongly given ground on such issues, but this only
strengthens the Right as well as being wrong politically. It is far more
persuasive to put forward coherent and consistent left-wing policies than to
tack and turn according to whether or not you imagine something will be
popular.

Secondly, it makes a big difference if the movement
supporting Corbyn clearly and publicly articulates left-wing arguments and
policies – reaching out to millions of people in doing so - rather than getting
stuck in arguments about internal party democracy, allegations of abusive
behaviour or the dubious issue of ‘electability’. All of these need to be
addressed, but in developing a mass campaign the focus needs to be on political
alternatives. The leadership campaign is an opportunity to champion the
left-wing ideas that inspired so much hope and enthusiasm last summer. This is
where we on the left are at our strongest.

Finally,it’s also
important to have a sharp focus on popular mobilisation – like protests and
rallies - not merely treating this as an internal Labour Party battle. It’s
bigger than that. Such mobilisations facilitate mass participation in the
Corbyn campaign. They also provide a link between the campaign and broader
grassroots social movements, feeding a two-way relationship between Labour’s
left-wing leadership and the role of popular movements.

Ultimately, the social change we on the left want to see
will come, above all, through mass activity in protest movements and trade
unions, not simply (or even primarily) through the field of parliamentary
politics. A victory for Corbyn will embolden the movements. It will, for
example, give encouragement and hope to everyone building the national
anti-austerity demonstration outside Tory Conference on 2 October, to teachers
and junior doctors contemplating strike action in the autumn, and to
anti-racists campaigning against Islamophobia or in defence of migrant rights
or refugees.